similar to: [LLVMdev] ScheduleDAGInstrs/R600 test potential issue with implicit defs

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] ScheduleDAGInstrs/R600 test potential issue with implicit defs"

2014 Feb 25
4
[LLVMdev] ScheduleDAGInstrs/R600 test potential issue with implicit defs
Hi Tom, Thanks a lot for your explanations, now it makes a lot more sense ;) I had a slightly closer look at the R600 packetizer, and the issue is that the third LSHL instruction has both an implicit use and *afterwards* an implicit def of T1_XYZW. The latter def causes the current ScheduleDAGInstrs implementation to ignore the implicit use, thus the ScheduleDAG only contains an
2012 Oct 24
3
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing Pass seems to ignore part of CFG.
Hi, I don't know if my llvm ir code is faulty, or if I spot a bug in the RegisterCoalescing Pass, so I'm posting my issue on the ML. Shader and print-before-all dump are given below. The interessing part is the vreg6/vreg48 reduction : before RegCoalescing, the machine code is : // BEFORE LOOP ... Some COPYs.... 400B%vreg47<def> = COPY %vreg2<kill>; R600_Reg32:%vreg47,%vreg2
2012 Oct 25
0
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing Pass seems to ignore part of CFG.
Hi Vincent, On 24/10/2012 23:26, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > Hi, > > I don't know if my llvm ir code is faulty, or if I spot a bug in the RegisterCoalescing Pass, so I'm posting my issue on the ML. Shader and print-before-all dump are given below. > > The interessing part is the vreg6/vreg48 reduction : before RegCoalescing, the machine code is : > > // BEFORE LOOP >
2012 Oct 25
2
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing Pass seems to ignore part of CFG.
> > PHIElim and TwoAddress passes leave SSA form. > May be a missed something in your code but %vreg48 seems to be there > after PHI elimination. PHIElim tags those kind of registers as being > PHIJoin regs, updating LiveVariables pass, so the regcoalescer is aware > of them (some SSA info is still alive but the reg coalescer will > invalidate that information after
2012 Oct 25
3
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing Pass seems to ignore part of CFG.
Hi Vincent, On 25/10/2012 18:14, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > When examining the debug output of regalloc, it seems that joining 32bits reg also joins 128 parent reg. > > If I look at the : > %vreg34<def> = COPY %vreg6:sel_y; R600_Reg32:%vreg34 R600_Reg128:%vreg6 > > instructions ; it gets joined to : > 928B%vreg34<def> = COPY %vreg48:sel_y; > > when vreg6 and
2012 Oct 25
0
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing Pass seems to ignore part of CFG.
Thank for your help. You're right, merging vreg32 and vreg48 is perfectly fine, sorry I missed that. I "brute force" debuged by adding MachineFunction dump after each join, I think I found the issue : it's when vreg32 and vreg10 are merged. vreg10 only appears in BB#3, and the join only occurs in BB#3 apparently even if vreg32 lives in the 4 machine blocks After joining, there
2012 Oct 26
1
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing Pass seems to ignore part of CFG.
Vincent, File a bug report so you can get a fix for it. Ivan On 25/10/2012 23:01, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > Thank for your help. You're right, merging vreg32 and vreg48 is perfectly fine, sorry I missed that. > I "brute force" debuged by adding MachineFunction dump after each join, I think I found the issue : it's when vreg32 and vreg10 are merged. > vreg10 only
2012 Oct 20
2
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing pass crashes with ImplicitDef registers
Hi, below is an output of "llc -march=r600 -mcpu=cayman -print-before-all -debug-only=regalloc file.shader" command from llvm3.2svn. The register coalescing pass crashes when joining vreg12:sel_z with vreg13 registers, because it tries to access the interval liveness of vreg13... which is undefined. I don't know if it's a bug of the pass, or if my backend should do something
2012 Oct 25
0
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing Pass seems to ignore part of CFG.
When examining the debug output of regalloc, it seems that joining 32bits reg also joins 128 parent reg. If I look at the : %vreg34<def> = COPY %vreg6:sel_y; R600_Reg32:%vreg34 R600_Reg128:%vreg6 instructions ; it gets joined to : 928B%vreg34<def> = COPY %vreg48:sel_y;  when vreg6 and vreg48 are joined. It's right. But joining the following copy 
2012 Sep 27
1
[LLVMdev] Setting cl::opt<bool> EnablePhysicalJoin without a command line
Hi, The R600 backend uses the register coalescer pass to generate code. This pass has a EnablePhysicalJoin boolean value which is set to false by default. The way the R600 backend is used in Mesa runtime makes it very usefull to be set to true : We use live inst to represent OpenGL Input, which are converted to vreg = COPY %PhysReg after instruction selection. For instance, the following sample
2012 Mar 29
2
[LLVMdev] VLIWPacketizerList: failing to schedule terminators
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 01:50:58PM -0500, Sergei Larin wrote: > Tom, > > What is in your isSchedulingBoundary? If it contains isLabel you might > need to disable that assert: > > assert(!MI->isTerminator() && !MI->isLabel() && > "Cannot schedule terminators or labels!"); > > Sergei Larin > > -- > Qualcomm
2012 Mar 29
2
[LLVMdev] VLIWPacketizerList: failing to schedule terminators
Hi, I'm trying to use the VLIWPacketizerList to schedule instructions for the R600 target, and I'm running into this assertion failure: ScheduleDAGInstrs.cpp:558: Cannot schedule terminators or labels! I think I might not be using the VLIWPacketizerList class correctly. I've attached my code to this email. Can anyone spot what I'm doing wrong? Also, I had to add a LiveIntervals
2012 Mar 29
0
[LLVMdev] VLIWPacketizerList: failing to schedule terminators
Tom, I do not have your call stack, but packetizer calls ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph to create dependency model. If this is the first time you use the new MI sched infrastructure (like your target has not implemented misched yet) there might be some work needed to implement couple target hooks. isSchedulingBoundary is one of them. Also try to disable that assert and see what happens. It
2012 Mar 29
0
[LLVMdev] VLIWPacketizerList: failing to schedule terminators
Tom, What is in your isSchedulingBoundary? If it contains isLabel you might need to disable that assert: assert(!MI->isTerminator() && !MI->isLabel() && "Cannot schedule terminators or labels!"); Sergei Larin -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Stellard
2012 Mar 29
2
[LLVMdev] VLIWPacketizerList: failing to schedule terminators
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:57:27PM -0500, Sergei Larin wrote: > Tom, > > I do not have your call stack, but packetizer calls > ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph to create dependency model. If this is > the first time you use the new MI sched infrastructure (like your target has > not implemented misched yet) there might be some work needed to implement > couple target
2012 Sep 05
2
[LLVMdev] Tilera LLVM backend
Hi, I would like to inform the community that I'm releasing the backend for tile64 I developed in the past several months. It can be downloaded from http://pnyf.inf.elte.hu/juhda/projects/tilera/ The version for LLVM 3.1 is a minimalist functioning implementation. Now I am working on utilizing the VLIW packetizer of LLVM, and other improvements are planned for the future. I would be
2012 Mar 29
0
[LLVMdev] VLIWPacketizerList: failing to schedule terminators
On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:57:27PM -0500, Sergei Larin wrote: >> Tom, >> >> I do not have your call stack, but packetizer calls >> ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph to create dependency model. If this is >> the first time you use the new MI sched infrastructure (like your
2012 Sep 06
0
[LLVMdev] Tilera LLVM backend
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 07:48:48PM +0200, JUHASZ David wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to inform the community that I'm releasing the backend for > tile64 I developed in the past several months. It can be downloaded from > > http://pnyf.inf.elte.hu/juhda/projects/tilera/ > > The version for LLVM 3.1 is a minimalist functioning implementation. Now > I am working on
2014 Oct 03
2
[LLVMdev] Weird problems with cos (was Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] R600: Add carry and borrow instructions. Use them to implement UADDO/USUBO)
Hi Tom, Matt, I'm running into strange issues with the cos test (piglit generated_tests/cl/builtin/math/builtin-float-cos-1.0.generated.c) I have been seeing random failures (incorrect results) for some time and tried to investigate. the weird part is that the failures are not 100% reproducible, sometimes the tests pass, or partly pass (it's usually float8 and float16 subtests that
2015 Nov 16
3
DFAPacketizer assert failure
> > It's hard to make a guess based on that assertion alone. Apparently there > is no transition in the DFA for these values. > > Do the arguments (e.g. CurrentState and FuncUnits) look reasonable? FuncUnits = 0 CurrentState = 0 StateTrans = {first = 0, second = 0} I understand that there is something wrong with the state machine but I can't figure out what exactly. My